|
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote: It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised. It does. Actually, it doesn't. Yes, it does. Have you listened to any AM stations in HD? A number of studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded trained ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely uninvolved, uninterested, and unhearing individuals, This is not true. 9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and improve digestion. Where is this study? The only meaningful studies that will determine HD Radio's technological solutions to improving audio quality will be studies that measure noise, distortion, and precision of reproduction, Here, HD falls quite flat. I have not seen a study where people can tell a difference in any of the attributes mentioned above. However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment". "People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking. Well...people aren't buying RADIOS at all....so it's a non-starter. If HD Radio offered the vastly sought after programming you claim, and the audio quality is so superior, radios would be flying off the shelves. They're not. I didn't say "vastly sought after"...I would use the term alternative programming. It's more niche. I already addressed the fact that people are not moved by the argument of quality. Hard reality. Sales tells the story that marketing wants not to have told. Again, the whole story is that there is apathy about ALL radio, Ham, SWL, Scanners, XM, HD, AM.... Does sales tell a story about that too? And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what iBiquity is selling. No, it doesn't. There is no "sales finish line"... As has been said before...content and programming is what people go to radio for. There has been no effort made by iBiquity or stations themselves to sell HD based on the additional formats streams available. Thanks, for nothing. Your welcome. Let me know if you need any more. ;-) |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On Jan 12, 8:47*pm, SMS wrote:
On 1/12/2012 6:47 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:09:37 -0800, wrote: It's nearly four years old, but since the satellite radio providers obviously don't want to talk about bit rates, it'll have to do. Actually, I'm not all that interested in bit rate. *What methinks is a problem is the error rate. *You could be running the full 64Kbits/sec per channel, but with a sufficiently high uncorrectable error rate, the quality will suck. *FEC helps, but isn't a cure all. *Same problem with HD Radio. *It's difficult enough to find the data rate without ripping open the receiver and probing the guts. *Getting the error rate is even more difficult. It's pretty clear where the complaints of audio quality on satellite are coming from. Ummm... the complaints are coming from listeners. *Should they be coming from elsewhere? ... obviously there are many consumers for whom audio quality is of minimal importance. I guess that includes me. *You wouldn't believer the OTA FM noise I have to tolerate. *Driving through the hills, the stations alternately appear and disappear. *In between the radio just belches noise. Trying to hear anything over the road noise, scanner, and 2way radio noise is difficult. *Meanwhile, the GPS mapping display is yelling at me to turn here and there. *At the same time, my Droid is mumbling something about email and reminders. *Even if the music were distortion free, I probably wouldn't notice. On long trips we like to listen to audio books, and most libraries have a very good selection. Well, they've passed laws against driving while talking on the phone. Perhaps the next step is to pass a law against driving while listening to audio books. *It's too much of a distraction for the GUM (great unwashed masses). - With HD Radio if signal strength is too low (error rate too high) it - simply won't lock on to HD. That is how the IBOC "HD" Radio Systems is supposed to work Digial when possible and the default is Analog. In-Band On-Channel (IBOC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBOC When you can not get KCBS-AM 740 kHz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCBS_%28AM%29 You either get the 'HD' Digital Signal or the Analog Signal and if you are just getting the Analog Signal then the Digital {Hash} Side-Bands don't matter cause you are "On-Channel" between them. Like it or not; for the Radio Listener who is listening to his/her Favorite 'Local' Radio Station the IBOC Side Bands are a non-issue : That's a problem for someone else who is listing to some other Radio Station. Think about it; did you care about what was happening on all the other Radio Stations across the band; while you were listening to your Favorite 'Local' Radio Station 10~20~30 Years Ago . . . NAH ! Mostly people listen to what they 'can' hear as mindless background noise while they go about their daily lives at home, work or driving. The beauty of Radio is that it is often a secondary {background} activity while you are focused on something else : While TV Watching {Viewing} requires your full {fool} involvement as a primary activity; and that usually means that you have to sit down and 'Watch' IT[TV]. As always this is RHF and... I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8 -ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-:o)- |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On Jan 12, 10:49*pm, Dave Barnett
wrote: On 1/12/2012 5:26 PM, SMS wrote: I think you're well aware of the answer. Not every FM station will be able to use 400 Khz. Some can have only one sideband at maximum power. A small percentage can't use either sideband. Life is rough when you're trying to maximize spectral efficiency. In fact a very small percentage will be able to use 400 KHz at their assigned frequencies. *We had this discussion once before, since the Ibiquity spec posted he http://www.nrscstandards.org/SG/NRSC-5-B/1026sE.pdf shows double the occupied bandwidth for a digital signal. You said that most stations are spaced far enough from their adjacent-channel neighbors that this wouldn't be a problem, despite numerous examples of adjacent-channel interference right here in the Bay Area. *The fact is that this would work somewhat in the plains of Western Nebraska, but never in the Bay Area. *Moving just one station has a severe domino effect. *Let me give you an example of one such situation right here in the Bay Area: The South Bay will soon have a full-power FM station on 93.7. *Why? 93.7 KXZM in Felton will be increasing power. *Why? KXSM in Hollister is moving from 93.5 to 93.1 and increasing power. *Why? KOSO in Patterson moved from 93.1 to 92.9 and decreased power. *Why? So 93.1 KHLX in Pollock Pines could move their transmitter closer to Sacramento. How did Pollock Pines get a radio station? *Somebody bought a radio station in Susanville and moved it to Pollock Pines. This is just one example of how tightly sandwiched signals are throughout the US. *A transaction in Susanville has an effect on the Bay Area. - Spacing is already so close that adjacent-channel - HD interference is very obvious to those who know - what it is. NAH - To the average Radio Listener the simply will continue to listen to their Favorite 'Local' Radio Station. To the 99% : Radio Listening It's About Your 'Station*' not the entire Radio Band. * Maybe 1~2~3 Favorite 'Local' Radio Stations. - Those who don't know the difference between regular - static and digital noise just turn off their radio. NAH - They will continue to listen to their Favorite 'Local' Radio Station. -again- To the 99% : Radio Listening It's About Your 'Station*' not the entire Radio Band. -*That is why those of us who care about the real - future of broadcasting and know how to use a - spectrum analyzer would like to see the Ibiquity - scheme just go away and be replaced with a truly - viable digital radio medium. - - Dave B. "spectrum analyzer" ROTFL clearly you are one of the 1%ers; and thus are NOT worthy of consideration when it comes to the Income Stream, Broadcast Revenue and Expenditures related to the operation of one (1) Radio Station as a 'Local' Business Enterprise versus Managing the Entire Radio Band for a Metro Area. As always this is RHF and... I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8 -ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-:o)- |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On Jan 13, 6:25*am, SMS wrote:
On 1/12/2012 10:49 PM, Dave Barnett wrote: On 1/12/2012 5:26 PM, SMS wrote: I think you're well aware of the answer. Not every FM station will be able to use 400 Khz. Some can have only one sideband at maximum power. A small percentage can't use either sideband. Life is rough when you're trying to maximize spectral efficiency. In fact a very small percentage will be able to use 400 KHz at their assigned frequencies. We had this discussion once before, since the Ibiquity spec posted he That's why the industry is pushing for asymmetric sidebands. 200 KHz is a compromise when 400 KHz isn't feasible. - It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio - to move to digital broadcasting. It's the only way to - remain a relevant choice. We're not talking about - radio enthusiasts, we're talking about the mass - market which matters to broadcasters. Spoken/Written like a true disciple of D'Eduardo ! http://www.davidgleason.com/ Terrestrial Radio serving up Audio Content to The Masses -radio-where-content-is-king-and-audio-quality- -just-needs-to-be-good-enough-to-be-enjoyable- -to-the-radio-listener- As always this is RHF and... I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8 -ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-:o)- |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 1/14/12 10:51 AM, RHF wrote:
Hello ! - Wake-Up FCC Expand The FM Radio Band from 76 MHz to 88 MHz - Do It Now ! I have to say that using 76 - 88 MHz for digital radio sounds like a good idea. ANy objections? ;-) gr, hwh |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On Jan 12, 7:25*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 1/11/12 09:09 , sms88 wrote: On 1/10/2012 9:29 PM, MotoFox wrote: And it came to pass that Richard Evans delivered the following message unto the people, saying~ Actually I'm not sure, but in the past there have been broadcasts in foreign countries, at up to 320k, and never at any bit rate higher than that. Also I thought the limit for mp2 was 320k, but I might be wrong about that. MP3 tops out at 320k. MP2 tops out at 384; sample rates, 32000-48000 Hz. I don't believe MP3 is used over the air, but it is widely used for Internet audio streams. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_...nical_specific.... (Oh yeah, and MP3 can't claim to have won an Emmy....) LOL. In the real world of radio what matters in terms of audio quality is what radio listeners perceive. There have been extensive tests comparing perceived audio quality of the different digital sources. * *And here's what you're missing. This is a survey of a general population. Of which many will be audiophiles. Many will be audio neutral. Many will be tone deaf. And many will simply not understand what they're hearing well enough to give a meaninful answer. * *Many of audiophiles have spent tens of thousands of dollars in hardware, and can tell the difference between a high bit mp3 and a full bandwidth CD reject out of hand the forced acceptance of low bit audio simply because those who don't know, don't hear, and don't care, accept the performance of HD radio as high quality, based on untrained perception. * *Low bit mp3s do not, will not and cannot be made to sound as detailed, as clean, or as ear pleasing to those who know the difference as what's currently in place, even when processed to death. And there is no perceptual market place study of those who don't know, don't hear, or don't care which will change that. * *These perceptions are not reality. Oops These 'Perceptions' Are The Very Real "REALITY" of the Masses of Radio Listeners {Audio Content Customers} that Experience {Feel} them with their own two ears. -we-like-sound-of-radio-:- -we-know-what-we-like-and-that-is-good-enough-for-us- And after all Radio is a Mass Media : A Radio Station Serves the Masses Thousands & Millions of Radio Listeners* : Not just the few hundreds of Audiophiles and Radio Aficionados -it's-a-business-not-a-hobby- * Radio Connecting Consumers and Advertisers in the Mass Media Market Place of 'Local' Business Marketing. As always this is RHF and... I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8 -ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-:o)- |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 1/14/12 24:55 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message ... On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote: It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised. It does. Actually, it doesn't. Yes, it does. Have you listened to any AM stations in HD? Yes, I have. Digital artifacts. High noise. More distortion than wideband AM. I did a proof of performance on one AM HD system. It failed to meet the audio performance requirements of NRSCII. HD FM was better than HD AM, but failed to meet the noise and distortion specs of FM So, NO...HD radio doesn't offer the improvement in audio that's been promised. A number of studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded trained ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely uninvolved, uninterested, and unhearing individuals, This is not true. It is. I was part of several of them. 9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and improve digestion. Where is this study? It was the advertising hook for marketing cigarettes post-war. Based on a survey of physicians conducted by the Tobacco Institute. The science, like your HD perceptuals, is somewhat questionable. Pick up any copy of Look, or Life. It's there. Ronald Reagan was a model in some of the ads. The only meaningful studies that will determine HD Radio's technological solutions to improving audio quality will be studies that measure noise, distortion, and precision of reproduction, Here, HD falls quite flat. I have not seen a study where people can tell a difference in any of the attributes mentioned above. Then read any article by Ken Pohlmann during the early days of CD. He published dozens of them. If audible differences between the extant technologies and CD were detectable, the audible differences between HD Radio and FM are detectable. Read the Fraunhofer studies about the audible differences between MP3 and CD audio. There's plenty of scientific data available for those who wish to know the facts. Quoting marketing perceptuals to rebut scientifically observed facts is a logic failure common to iBiquity fanbois. However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment". "People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking. Well...people aren't buying RADIOS at all....so it's a non-starter. Then, HD, being a Radio product, is also a non-starter, by your own words. If HD Radio offered the vastly sought after programming you claim, and the audio quality is so superior, radios would be flying off the shelves. They're not. I didn't say "vastly sought after"...I would use the term alternative programming. It's more niche. Look at actual playlists. It's hardly niche. It's repackaged programming that's found elsewhere on the dial. Read the actual playlists. On 8 of the HD subchannels in Chicago, this so-called alternative programming, played the exact same tunes as baseband FM stations elsewhere on the dial. Only the order was different. And the patter. But even the patter didn't differ by much. And why is this? Because the content is being developed by the same people who are programming the baseband. The same mentality, the same research, the same business model with the same goals. Why would doing things the same way by the same people produce anything that was actually different? It wouldn't. It doesn't. And where there is genuinely unique and alternative programming, it's audience is vanishingly small. Even in a market the size of Chicago, there's no viable market for genuinely alternative programming. The lifegroup size is simply too small to attract advertisers. And in the US, broadcasting has always been about the money. Even HD subchannels are about the money. Satellite Radio, with its much broader reach has the potential to monetize small lifegroup size by aggregating the niche across the entire landscape of the population into salable numbers...but even Satellite Radio has failed to do that. Why?...probably because the same people who programmed the radio stations that satellite users subscribed to escape from, were programming satellite radio. Same ****, different fee structure. Subscriptions are not increasing as expected. And where there was real alternative programming on Satellite radio, there wasn't enough of a market to support the cost of providing it. So, those channels were removed to give way to the simulcast commercial stations...with their own commercial load. So, if you're taking the position that HD radio offers alternative programming on the digital subchannels, you're again dispensing misleading information. Urban, with a playlist expanded by one tier and different disc jockeys isn't alternative programming, when you've got 4 or five other urban stations playing the same tunes. Simulcasting your AM on an HD FM subchannel isn't alternative programming when the AM is still on the air. And the great Oldies 104 experiment in Chicago, when WJMK, Chicago, went to Jack-FM and put the WJMK format on the HD subchannel, because of the huge public outcry when Oldies 104 was removed from the dial, produced insufficient revenue to support itself, and it's disc jockeys' salaries, because no one was going out to buy an HD radio to hear Dick Biondi and Fred Winston play the same music that could be heard could be heard on the 'new' WLS-FM Oldies format. Now, there's nothing to say that what you claim CAN'T happen with HD Radio...it can. Provided someone is willing to make the commitment to offer genuinely alternative programming, and stick with it, come what may. But this is Radio. Research, corporate and local business goals, and a headspace dominated by P&L statements, are going to erase the intents of creatives, in order to monetize the product to meet revenue goals. That means more of the same. Hell, at CBS, Hollander even went so far as to take the Free-For-All alternative concept of Jack-FM, and put it on a computerized playlist. Why? Because he needed it to fit into the corporate business model. HD radio is no different than what's currently being offered, because it's RADIO. Alternative in name, but not in content. Lower audio quality claiming to be CD quality...all in the name of, God love 'em, profits. A lot of marketing. A lot of license fees for iBiquity. Not a lot of substance to the claims. It's still a business, after all. And if alternative programming could produce the revenue, it wouldn't be alternative. I already addressed the fact that people are not moved by the argument of quality. Hard reality. Sales tells the story that marketing wants not to have told. Again, the whole story is that there is apathy about ALL radio, Ham, SWL, Scanners, XM, HD, AM.... Does sales tell a story about that too? You're making my point for me. And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what iBiquity is selling. No, it doesn't. There is no "sales finish line"... You're saying that there's a business model without goals? Horse****. As has been said before...content and programming is what people go to radio for. There has been no effort made by iBiquity or stations themselves to sell HD based on the additional formats streams available. And that, speaks louder than anything. |
HD Radio one of ways to get more content/choice
On 1/13/2012 10:55 AM, hwh wrote:
How about the economic viability to get more stations in? Or does more stations mean less money per station and therefore less interesting content? Historically, trying to constrain the supply to increase revenue has failed when there are alternative products available. We're not talking about crude oil here, we're talking about methods to deliver content. If listeners don't find the content they want on terrestrial radio then they switch to other sources, which of course is what has been happening, with internet streaming, satellite radio (to a lesser extent), or simply playing locally stored content). Remember that for vehicles, until the 1980's tape decks and CD players were not standard equipment, people listened to the radio in their car, or they installed an after-market head unit, or if they had a lot of money they got the dealer-installed or factory installed optional tape deck. The solution for terrestrial radio stations is to compete on content, both quality and quantity, and many are doing exactly that. The FM stations that threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue because they believe that there are better digital radio alternatives to IBOC will fail. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 1/13/2012 8:58 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Methinks content is everything with one big catch. Polluted content is a big problem. Having the correct content will attract listeners. Interleaving the content with advertising, irritating announcers, and worthless PSA's, will drive them away. I've noticed that I tend to always change stations in the middle of commercials and announcements and rarely in the middle of a song or tune. I'm sure there's a study somewhere on WHEN listeners change stations, but I can't find it. You're right, and ironically, at least for now, the HD sub-channels do a wonderful job of solving that problem. There are sufficiently few HD receivers that the stations can't or don't sell advertising on the sub-channels. Another problem is convenience. I've only played with HD Radio in the stores and in a friends vehicle. I forgot the exact ordeal process required but one thing stood out. It was not possible to tune or scan across the band, catching all the regular FM and HD stations in sequence. You had to tune to the regular FM channel, and then switch to HD1 or HD2. As long as HD1 and HD2 are the poor step child of the regular FM station on the dial, people are not going to listen. I can't speak for all receivers, but the ones I have don't work that way. When you scan, it scans in sequence by frequency and then by sub-channel. And of course you can preset and HD2 channel which is what I do, and what I suspect most people do on car radios, whether it's an analog or a digital channel. Incidentally, it was really irritating to listen to HD1 while moving. Every time the error rate climbed to an unacceptable level, it would switch to the regular FM audio. No provisions for locking it on HD1 or switching to dead air. I forgot the maker and model, but I can ask the owner if necessary. I will admit that when the signal was strong enough, HD1 sounded quite good. You're also right about reception. At 1% power, reception is poor outside urban areas. That will be solved with power increases. Many head units do allow you to go to analog only mode. Installing an HD Radio is also not a trivial exercise. On older vehicles, which have a standard single DIN or double DIN opening, it's quite easy to change the head unit. You buy the harness that matches your vehicle and attach it to the wires from the head unit, and it all plugs right in. In most vehicles it's very straightforward. On newer vehicles where the audio system is non-standard, you're right, adding HD is more of a pain. You can usually find an adapter that plugs in to a port on the back of the unit intended for a satellite tuner. But the bottom line is that most people are not going to change their vehicle's head unit unless it fails. The big increase in digital receivers is coming from new cars where they are standard or optional equipment from the factory. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 1/14/2012 12:55 AM, RHF wrote:
Most Cable TV and Dish SAT-TV services offer 30~60 Channels of good quality "Non-stop music in any flavor" along with all those TV Channels. Alas, cable and Dish/DirecTV work poorly in vehicles. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 1/14/2012 2:57 AM, hwh wrote:
On 1/14/12 10:51 AM, RHF wrote: Hello ! - Wake-Up FCC Expand The FM Radio Band from 76 MHz to 88 MHz - Do It Now ! I have to say that using 76 - 88 MHz for digital radio sounds like a good idea. ANy objections? ;-) gr, hwh Sadly, what matters is not what anyone says on Usenet, but what the broadcasters want. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On Jan 14, 9:41*am, SMS wrote:
On 1/14/2012 2:57 AM, hwh wrote: On 1/14/12 10:51 AM, RHF wrote: Hello ! - Wake-Up FCC Expand The FM Radio Band from 76 MHz to 88 MHz - Do It Now ! I have to say that using 76 - 88 MHz for digital radio sounds like a good idea. ANy objections? ;-) gr, hwh Sadly, what matters is not what anyone says on Usenet, but what the broadcasters want. LOL! Then why do you spend so much time here shilling for iBiquity? No, what matter is what consumers want - consumers never asked for HD. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 1/14/12 3:41 PM, SMS wrote:
On 1/14/2012 2:57 AM, hwh wrote: On 1/14/12 10:51 AM, RHF wrote: Hello ! - Wake-Up FCC Expand The FM Radio Band from 76 MHz to 88 MHz - Do It Now ! I have to say that using 76 - 88 MHz for digital radio sounds like a good idea. ANy objections? ;-) gr, hwh Sadly, what matters is not what anyone says on Usenet, but what the broadcasters want. No. If that would be true there would have been no such thing as HD radio. Or XM. Or music channels on cable. gr, hwh |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... On 1/14/12 24:55 , FarsWatch4 wrote: "D. Peter wrote in message ... On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote: It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised. It does. Actually, it doesn't. Yes, it does. Have you listened to any AM stations in HD? Yes, I have. Digital artifacts. High noise. More distortion than wideband AM. If you hear AM HD as worse...then you are in the minority. So, NO...HD radio doesn't offer the improvement in audio that's been promised. Yes it does. A number of studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded trained ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely uninvolved, uninterested, and unhearing individuals, This is not true. It is. I was part of several of them. No, it is not true. 9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and improve digestion. Where is this study? It was the advertising hook for marketing cigarettes post-war. Yes, it was an advertising hook...not a study of any serious basis. (Can't you tell the difference?) Read the Fraunhofer studies about the audible differences between MP3 and CD audio. However, people embrace the MP3 and accept it. There's plenty of scientific data available for those who wish to know the facts. And for those who want to minipulate them. Quoting marketing perceptuals to rebut scientifically observed facts is a logic failure common to iBiquity fanbois. However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment". "People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking. Well...people aren't buying RADIOS at all....so it's a non-starter. Then, HD, being a Radio product, is also a non-starter, by your own words. There is apathy about ALL radio. Getting anyone interested in anything about radio is a challenge. If HD Radio offered the vastly sought after programming you claim, and the audio quality is so superior, radios would be flying off the shelves. They're not. I didn't say "vastly sought after"...I would use the term alternative programming. It's more niche. Look at actual playlists. It's hardly niche. It's repackaged programming that's found elsewhere on the dial. I have looked at the playlists. No, it is not programming that is found elsewhere on the dial. And where there is genuinely unique and alternative programming, it's audience is vanishingly small. As stated earlier. It's niche. And in the US, broadcasting has always been about the money. Even HD subchannels are about the money. True. Satellite Radio, with its much broader reach has the potential to monetize small lifegroup size by aggregating the niche across the entire landscape of the population into salable numbers...but even Satellite Radio has failed to do that. Why?... Because (again) there is apathy about ALL radio.... So, if you're taking the position that HD radio offers alternative programming on the digital subchannels, you're again dispensing misleading information. Apparently you do not know what you are talking about... Youa re baisically repeating sound bites and things you've heard others espouse without ahving any real understanding of reality. However, you are entitled. And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what iBiquity is selling. No, it doesn't. There is no "sales finish line"... You're saying that there's a business model without goals? Oh, there are goals, it is not "how many people go into best buy and purchase an HD radio". |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On Jan 14, 12:47*pm, "FarsWatch4" wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in ... On 1/14/12 24:55 , FarsWatch4 wrote: "D. Peter *wrote in message ... On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote: It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised. It does. * *Actually, it doesn't. Yes, it does. *Have you listened to any AM stations in HD? * Yes, I have. Digital artifacts. High noise. More distortion than wideband AM. If you hear AM HD as worse...then you are in the minority. * So, NO...HD radio doesn't offer the improvement in audio that's been promised. Yes it does. A number of studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded trained ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely uninvolved, uninterested, and unhearing individuals, This is not true. * It is. I was part of several of them. No, it is not true. * *9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and improve digestion. Where is this study? * * * It was the advertising hook for marketing cigarettes post-war. Yes, it was an advertising hook...not a study of any serious basis. *(Can't you tell the difference?) * * Read the Fraunhofer studies about the audible differences between MP3 and CD audio. However, people embrace the MP3 and accept it. * * There's plenty of scientific data available for those who wish to know the facts. And for those who want to minipulate them. * * Quoting marketing perceptuals to rebut scientifically observed facts is a logic failure common to iBiquity fanbois. However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment". * *"People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking. Well...people aren't buying RADIOS at all....so it's a non-starter. * Then, HD, being a Radio product, is also a non-starter, by your own words. There is apathy about ALL radio. *Getting anyone interested in anything about radio is a challenge. If HD Radio offered the vastly sought after programming you claim, and the audio quality is so superior, radios would be flying off the shelves. They're not. I didn't say "vastly sought after"...I would use the term alternative programming. *It's more niche. * Look at actual playlists. It's hardly niche. It's repackaged programming that's found elsewhere on the dial. I have looked at the playlists. *No, it is not programming that is found elsewhere on the dial. * And where there is genuinely unique and alternative programming, it's audience is vanishingly small. As stated earlier. *It's niche. * And in the US, broadcasting has always been about the money. Even HD subchannels are about the money. True. * Satellite Radio, with its much broader reach has the potential to monetize small lifegroup size by aggregating the niche across the entire landscape of the population into salable numbers...but even Satellite Radio has failed to do that. Why?... Because (again) there is apathy about ALL radio.... * So, if you're taking the position that HD radio offers alternative programming on the digital subchannels, you're again dispensing misleading information. Apparently you do not know what you are talking about... Youa re baisically repeating sound bites and things you've heard others espouse without ahving any real understanding of reality. However, you are entitled. And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what iBiquity is selling. No, it doesn't. *There is no "sales finish line"... * You're saying that there's a business model without goals? Oh, there are goals, it is not "how many people go into best buy and purchase an HD radio".- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "Struble: Radio Is the Last Analog Medium Standing" "Insignia HD — I think this will be a nice little interim step for jogging or working out. It proves the viability of the technology and hopefully we'll get sales; but no, this is not going to sell in the hundreds of thousands... Radio alone — the sad reality of where it is — as a standalone device, it just doesn't exist anymore as a category. Nobody goes into Best Buy and says 'Where's the radio department?'" http://www.rwonline.com/article/87370 None, according to Struble! LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!! Yea, HD Radio is now "mainstream"! LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
"Radio Is the Last Analog Medium Standing"
"Struble: Radio Is the Last Analog Medium Standing" "Insignia HD — I think this will be a nice little interim step for jogging or working out. It proves the viability of the technology and hopefully we'll get sales; but no, this is not going to sell in the hundreds of thousands... Radio alone — the sad reality of where it is — as a standalone device, it just doesn't exist anymore as a category. Nobody goes into Best Buy and says 'Where's the radio department?'" http://www.rwonline.com/article/87370 None, according to Struble! That's right. Nor are they asking for Shortwave, police scanners, etc., etc. You're saying that there's a business model without goals? Oh, there are goals, it is not "how many people go into best buy and purchase an HD radio".- As was stated elsewhere..people only buy radios when they buy cars. ANd HD is in more and more cars! Yea, HD Radio is now "mainstream"! Amen! |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 1/14/12 11:47 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message ... On 1/14/12 24:55 , FarsWatch4 wrote: "D. Peter wrote in message ... On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote: It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised. It does. Actually, it doesn't. Yes, it does. Have you listened to any AM stations in HD? Yes, I have. Digital artifacts. High noise. More distortion than wideband AM. If you hear AM HD as worse...then you are in the minority. So what. Truth is not a consensus. So, NO...HD radio doesn't offer the improvement in audio that's been promised. Yes it does. A number of studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded trained ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely uninvolved, uninterested, and unhearing individuals, This is not true. It is. I was part of several of them. No, it is not true. Actually, it is. I've been part of several studies. Selecting candidates. Testing. And evaluating results. In all of the studies I've been part of, musicians, sound technicians, producers, and audiophiles were specifically excluded. 9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and improve digestion. Where is this study? It was the advertising hook for marketing cigarettes post-war. Yes, it was an advertising hook...not a study of any serious basis. (Can't you tell the difference?) Yes, I can. But the point that you removed from the quote was that it was a survey. Of doctors. No different than the surveys used to support the conclusions regarding HD radio. Same methodology. Same intent. And, as you conveniently ignored, the results, and the sources of the survey material were to be found in the pages of Look. Or Life. Your selective rebuttal is getting obvious, there, my friend. Read the Fraunhofer studies about the audible differences between MP3 and CD audio. However, people embrace the MP3 and accept it. What people embrace and accept has nothing to do with audio quality. That's why mp3 is not widely accepted in audiophilia. Nor is it acceptable as source material in studios anymore. My audio clients won't even accept an mp3 for audition, anymore. MP3 may be on iPods from sea to shining sea, but its limits have clearly defined where and under what circumstances mp3 is applicable. Which returns to the point that it's the content that drives listening. "People" put mp3's on their iPods so they can cram more content onto a single drive. Audiophiles using iPod, use .aif or .wav, or a lossless codec rather than mp3, because the audio quality is not acceptable. There's plenty of scientific data available for those who wish to know the facts. And for those who want to minipulate them. "The problem with science is that it can be corrupted." -- Number 6. the prisoner, 1968 That data and facts can be manipulated is evidenced by the very subject matter of this discussion. Quoting marketing perceptuals to rebut scientifically observed facts is a logic failure common to iBiquity fanbois. However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment". "People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking. Well...people aren't buying RADIOS at all....so it's a non-starter. Then, HD, being a Radio product, is also a non-starter, by your own words. There is apathy about ALL radio. Getting anyone interested in anything about radio is a challenge. If HD Radio offered the vastly sought after programming you claim, and the audio quality is so superior, radios would be flying off the shelves. They're not. I didn't say "vastly sought after"...I would use the term alternative programming. It's more niche. Look at actual playlists. It's hardly niche. It's repackaged programming that's found elsewhere on the dial. I have looked at the playlists. No, it is not programming that is found elsewhere on the dial. And where there is genuinely unique and alternative programming, it's audience is vanishingly small. As stated earlier. It's niche. And in the US, broadcasting has always been about the money. Even HD subchannels are about the money. True. Satellite Radio, with its much broader reach has the potential to monetize small lifegroup size by aggregating the niche across the entire landscape of the population into salable numbers...but even Satellite Radio has failed to do that. Why?... Because (again) there is apathy about ALL radio.... It's actually more fundamental than that. Satellite Radio hasn't embraced many niche formats because there isn't ENOUGH money to be made, compared to more 'mainstream' programming. It's about the money. And the same people who ****ed up Radio, are programming Sirius/XM. Why? Because they see more money in that. So, if you're taking the position that HD radio offers alternative programming on the digital subchannels, you're again dispensing misleading information. Apparently you do not know what you are talking about... I've been in broadcasting, specifically Radio and TV, since I was 6. And I'm currently actively involved in developing programming. Yes, I do know what I'm talking about. And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what iBiquity is selling. No, it doesn't. There is no "sales finish line"... You're saying that there's a business model without goals? Oh, there are goals, it is not "how many people go into best buy and purchase an HD radio". If you think there are no sales goals, you are unaware of how business works. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... A whole lot of stuff about sales and IBOC (by the way, HD does NOT stand for High Definition, as many here seem to believe. It stands for Hybrid Digital) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not sure why there is even a discussion about either quality or selection, since the great masses of youth (the ones being marketed TO) are sheep. They listen to what they are TOLD to by the PM's at the radio stations, who, in turn, play what THEY are told to by the recording industry. The few that actually WANT alternative programming do not constitute (and never will) a sales pool that will be profitable. With all the stupid new laws going (or that have gone) into effect regarding pay for content, many stations' profit margin has dropped significantly. The recording industry has bitten the hand that feeds it by requiring stations (ESPECIALLY HD2 and HD3 streams as well as internet streams) to pay exhorbatant fees for content. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:55:32 -0500, "FarsWatch4"
wrote: 9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and improve digestion. Where is this study? This was highly touted in advertising during the 1940s. --- Phil Kane Beaverton, OR |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 1/14/12 8:34 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
Apparently you do not know what you are talking about... I've been in broadcasting, specifically Radio and TV, since I was 6. And I'm currently actively involved in developing programming. Yes, I do know what I'm talking about. People working in digital radio always come up with the stale argument that people who don't like it "do not know what they are talking about". They have done so in Europe as well. gr, hwh |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:55:13 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote: ?Why?Pay?Again?For?What?You?Already?Have? I have several radio receivers around here - some mono, some stereo. Case closed. --- Phil Kane Beaverton, OR |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 1/14/12 13:59 , Brenda Ann wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... A whole lot of stuff about sales and IBOC (by the way, HD does NOT stand for High Definition, as many here seem to believe. It stands for Hybrid Digital) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not sure why there is even a discussion about either quality or selection, since the great masses of youth (the ones being marketed TO) are sheep. They listen to what they are TOLD to by the PM's at the radio stations, who, in turn, play what THEY are told to by the recording industry. LOL! Yeah, that's pretty much it. The few that actually WANT alternative programming do not constitute (and never will) a sales pool that will be profitable. Which is why it's called 'alternative.' With all the stupid new laws going (or that have gone) into effect regarding pay for content, many stations' profit margin has dropped significantly. The recording industry has bitten the hand that feeds it by requiring stations (ESPECIALLY HD2 and HD3 streams as well as internet streams) to pay exhorbatant fees for content. There will come a point, and it will be well too late, that the recording industry recognizes this. But the damage they do in the meantime will be significant. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 1/14/12 14:00 , Phil Kane wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:55:32 -0500, "FarsWatch4" wrote: 9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and improve digestion. Where is this study? This was highly touted in advertising during the 1940s. As late as 1962. --- Phil Kane Beaverton, OR |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 1/14/12 14:03 , hwh wrote:
On 1/14/12 8:34 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote: Apparently you do not know what you are talking about... I've been in broadcasting, specifically Radio and TV, since I was 6. And I'm currently actively involved in developing programming. Yes, I do know what I'm talking about. People working in digital radio always come up with the stale argument that people who don't like it "do not know what they are talking about". They have done so in Europe as well. You make a good point. gr, hwh |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
In article , hwh
scribeth thus On 1/14/12 10:51 AM, RHF wrote: Hello ! - Wake-Up FCC Expand The FM Radio Band from 76 MHz to 88 MHz - Do It Now ! I have to say that using 76 - 88 MHz for digital radio sounds like a good idea. ANy objections? ;-) gr, hwh Well it has Low Band PMR in the UK so you'd have to shift that, not that it has many users now but its new receivers for everyone..... -- Tony Sayer |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
snip And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what iBiquity is selling. No, it doesn't. There is no "sales finish line"... You're saying that there's a business model without goals? Horse****. As has been said before...content and programming is what people go to radio for. There has been no effort made by iBiquity or stations themselves to sell HD based on the additional formats streams available. And that, speaks louder than anything. Most sensible comments hereon for quite some time;!.)... -- Tony Sayer |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
Costa Concordia Call sign: IBHD
|
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... I have to say that using 76 - 88 MHz for digital radio sounds like a good idea. ANy objections? ;-) gr, hwh Well it has Low Band PMR in the UK so you'd have to shift that, not that it has many users now but its new receivers for everyone..... -- Tony Sayer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's TV channel 6 in the US. This has been discussed to death, but there are still many stations on channel 6, even after the shift to digital. Some are also saying "use the low VHF TV band to expand cell phones, etc." but that would be very problematic due to the physics of antenna construction. I doubt that people want to go back to having whip antennas on their portable phones. Personally, I think if they dropped the entire 54-88 MHz low VHF TV band, they should give a section of it, maybe 2-4 MHz, over to a license-free public "Free band" where amateur broadcasters (i.e. "pirates") could legally broadcast. Sort of like what they did to the 11m Citizens Band. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 11/01/2012 16:03, J G Miller wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 07:09:26h -0800, SmS 88 declared: The iBiquity codec is based upon the AAC+ (HE-AAC) codec. "Scientific testing by the European Broadcasting Union has indicated that HE-AAC at 48 kbit/s was ranked as "Excellent" quality using the MUSHRA scale.[8] Since the iBiquity codec is *based upon* but not *is* the AAC+ (HE-AAC) codec, it is not valid to use tests on the original AAC+ (HE-AAC) codec as evidence that the iBiquity codec its-self delivers quality. This is a good point. And I would also add that this claim about he-aac is used by Encoder Technologies, who developed the codec (or at least the SBR part), and so have a vested interest in making it sound as good as possible. In reality aac+ can sound good at 48k, but not CD quality, as Encoder Technologies would like you to believe. Also I suspect that many broadcasters don't use it under ideal conditions. Previously when many internet broadcasters used 64k aac+, it was not excellent. It did sound acceptable, but not excellent, as there were some SBR artifacts. Add to this the fact that most HD-Radio broadcasters, don't actually use any bit rates higher than 40k. At 40k even aac+ sounds poor, and presumably the HD-Radio codec will sound even worse. If HD-Radio used the maximum bit rate of 96k, then it would probably sound acceptable under every day listening conditions. But even at 96k it would be lower quality than a good FM signal, and would rule out any hi-fi listening via terrestrial radio. That is something that I just don't feel right about. Richard E. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On Sunday, January 15th, 2012, at 12:11:07h +0000, Richard Evans wrote:
Add to this the fact that most HD-Radio broadcasters, don't actually use any bit rates higher than 40k. At 40k even aac+ sounds poor, and presumably the HD-Radio codec will sound even worse. And that is the sad reality of the situation. And if the FM band is ever cleared of analog stations, by the time that that happens, iBiquity HD radio will be a dinosaur in the broadcasting world, like eight tracks cassettes are in the CD world. The question listeners and radio stations should be asking is, what digital system could be developed for future use, rather than continuing with the present failures of DAB and HD(tm) radio. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 1/14/2012 11:59 AM, Brenda Ann wrote:
I'm not sure why there is even a discussion about either quality or selection, since the great masses of youth (the ones being marketed TO) are sheep. They listen to what they are TOLD to by the PM's at the radio stations, who, in turn, play what THEY are told to by the recording industry. The few that actually WANT alternative programming do not constitute (and never will) a sales pool that will be profitable. It's amusing to see proclamations that since the digital radio system in the U.S. is not of a quality that audiophiles would accept that somehow it needs to be scrapped in favor of something with a much higher bit rate so those listening to concerts in their car can do so from the radio rather than from a CD. The reason that every double blind test of audio quality has shown that listeners prefer digital radio over analog has much more to do with interference resulting from impaired conditions than from the raw bit rate. Every compression scheme is a compromise, and the key is to find a scheme that is of acceptable quality, not one that is lossless and that is as good as the original uncompressed content (though of course CDs are also compressed content). The question that digital radio answered was "what is a spectrally efficient method of using existing bandwidth to increase content choices and audio quality _and_ that has a clear path to an all digital system. If there had been any competition, it would have been another IBOC system. With all the stupid new laws going (or that have gone) into effect regarding pay for content, many stations' profit margin has dropped significantly. The recording industry has bitten the hand that feeds it by requirirng stations (ESPECIALLY HD2 and HD3 streams as well as internet streams) to pay exhorbatant fees for content. Broadcasters should be thrilled about the costs being incurred by streaming companies like Pandora, as well as the costs incurred by satellite radio, since terrestrial broadcasters are not paying content royalty fees like streamers and satellite radio are. Unless of course the station also streams, but they only pay the content royalties based on the number of on-line listeners. The Performance Rights Act (never passed) would have imposed content royalty fees on radio stations but they are much lower fees than are currently paid by satellite or streaming. There will probably be future attempts to pass this sort of legislation. One problem is that there is no way of knowing how many listeners are listening to a specific station in order to charge royalties per listener. With Arbitron ratings so inaccurate, broadcasters would not agree to paying royalties based on those ratings, so royalties per song would be based on some other metric, such as total station revenue (in order to avoid destroying small stations). It is true that HD Radio sub-channels are charged royalty fees to artists (through SESAC, ASCAP, and BMI) because they are essentially separate station. I don't know how the issue of HD1 versus analog is handled. Since it's the same content on both, do the stations have to pay only once? But HD sub-channels aren't charged content royalty fees (unless of course they are also streaming, and then it's just for the number of people streaming). If you care about the financial health of a radio station, and have a choice between streaming an OTA listening, choose OTA. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 15/01/2012 14:17, J G Miller wrote:
The question listeners and radio stations should be asking is, what digital system could be developed for future use, rather than continuing with the present failures of DAB and HD(tm) radio. Agreed. We did have high hopes for DRM+, and what they developed was a pretty good narrow band broadcasting standard, although not as good as it could have been, mostly due to not using the best error correction. Also I think they should have extended it's frequency range up to Band III. That would allow one DAB channel to be used for many small local radio stations. For wider band multiplexes, we appear to have got exactly what we needed with DVB-T2-Lite. The problem now is whether it ever actually gets used for radio. I'm also thinking, perhaps they ought to come out with a version of DVB to rival DRM+. Basically a narrow band version of DVB-T2-Lite. Perhaps they could call it DVB-TN or something like that. Basically use any relevant techniques used for T2-Lite but designed for much narrower channels. Perhaps a choice of 100Khz or 200Khz bandwidth. (The reason why I included 200Khz is for situations where a broadcaster can not use Qam64, in which case a wider bandwidth would be required to achieve a good bit rate). I would also suggest that a narrow band standard should also be designed to be able work well in SFN mode. The problem here would be signals from different TX sites being out of phase and so cancelling each other out. I think this problem could be solved by allowing the phase of the transmission to be changed randomly at regular intervals. Different TX sites could then change their phase in different ways, so if the signal cancels at one moment in time, the phases would soon change, and then it would no longer cancel. Richard E. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 12/01/2012 03:29, SMS wrote:
You have to look at the big picture I've lost count of the number of times I've heard this line, wonder where you keep copying it from :-o and recognize the practical considerations in moving from analog to digital, including the business considerations. We've seen how well creating a new digital band worked--it didn't. If they did look at the big picture, and considered everything, then they would have realized that broadcasting DRM+ in between the FM stations would be a better solution than using HD-Radio. Richard E. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 1/15/2012 6:17 AM, J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, January 15th, 2012, at 12:11:07h +0000, Richard Evans wrote: Add to this the fact that most HD-Radio broadcasters, don't actually use any bit rates higher than 40k. At 40k even aac+ sounds poor, and presumably the HD-Radio codec will sound even worse. And that is the sad reality of the situation. Thankfully that is not the reality at all. If you look at table 5.2.1 at http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_rate_report.pdf you can actually learn where listeners begin to not like the audio quality. The question listeners and radio stations should be asking is, what digital system could be developed for future use, rather than continuing with the present failures of DAB and HD(tm) radio. Only clueless listeners and radio stations would be asking that question. Those living in the real world know that the digital system in use in the U.S. is going to be around for a long time. And as HD continues to be deployed in other countries, there will be pressure for the ROW to go along with it as well. That's the actual reality of the situation. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 15/01/2012 17:33, SMS wrote:
On 1/15/2012 6:17 AM, J G Miller wrote: On Sunday, January 15th, 2012, at 12:11:07h +0000, Richard Evans wrote: Add to this the fact that most HD-Radio broadcasters, don't actually use any bit rates higher than 40k. At 40k even aac+ sounds poor, and presumably the HD-Radio codec will sound even worse. And that is the sad reality of the situation. Thankfully that is not the reality at all. If you look at table 5.2.1 at http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_rate_report.pdf you can actually learn where listeners begin to not like the audio quality. To me that table seems to suggest that more than 1/2 the listeners could tell the difference between a slightly lower it rate, and a slightly higher bit rate. Where is there a table showing how many people thought lower bit rates sounded OK, or were comparable to CD quality, or even comparable to FM quality. Of did they conveniently not include things like this, as it did not show what they wanted. The question listeners and radio stations should be asking is, what digital system could be developed for future use, rather than continuing with the present failures of DAB and HD(tm) radio. Only clueless listeners and radio stations would be asking that question. Those living in the real world know that the digital system in use in the U.S. is going to be around for a long time. It may well be around for a long time, but whether people actually want to listen to it is another matter. Here in the UK we've had DAB for about 15 years now, but still only a minority of people actually listen to it. And as HD continues to be deployed in other countries, there will be pressure for the ROW to go along with it as well. That's the actual reality of the situation. I think perhaps you accidentally added an "s" to the end of the word country ;-) But seriously. What other countries are actually seriously deploying HD-Radio. I suspect the answer will be very few, if any. Richard E. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 15/01/2012 17:33, SMS wrote:
The question listeners and radio stations should be asking is, what digital system could be developed for future use, rather than continuing with the present failures of DAB and HD(tm) radio. Only clueless listeners and radio stations would be asking that question. Those living in the real world know that the digital system in use in the U.S. is going to be around for a long time. And as HD continues to be deployed in other countries, there will be pressure for the ROW to go along with it as well. That's the actual reality of the situation. And what is so wrong with the idea of developing good modern digital broadcast systems, instead of using old out dated system like DAB and HD-Radio. When I bought my new computer, I didn't buy a Sinclair ZX spectrum. I bought a modern Laptop. Richard E. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On 15/01/2012 17:33, SMS wrote:
If you look at table 5.2.1 at http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_rate_report.pdf you can actually learn where listeners begin to not like the audio quality. Why don't you just record a sample of HD radio audio, encode it into FLAC format, and the upload it for us, so that we can judge the audio quality with our own ears. Or are you worried that we will find out just how bad it sounds. Richard E. |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On Jan 14, 1:53*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article , hwh scribeth thus On 1/14/12 10:51 AM, RHF wrote: Hello ! - Wake-Up FCC Expand The FM Radio Band from 76 MHz to 88 MHz - Do It Now ! I have to say that using 76 - 88 MHz for digital radio sounds like a good idea. ANy objections? ;-) gr, hwh - Well it has Low Band PMR in the UK so you'd - have to shift that, not that it has many users - now but its new receivers for everyone..... - -- - Tony Sayer Who is talking about the UK -not-me- The UK has 62M Radio Listeners -versus- 307M American Radio Listeners [5X the market] For the USA 76-88 MHz added to the current FM Radio Band would add another 60 Channels which would be required to be IBOC "HD" Radio and have HD-2 sub-channels. Presently there are around ~10,200 FM Radio Stations across the USA which is about 100 per FM Channel spread across the Nation. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...C-311837A1.pdf So with 60 more FM Channels there could be ~6000 more FM Radio Stations in the USA : Which means that all the present AM Radio Stations could be moved to the Expanded FM Radio Band 76-88 MHz. -say-bye-bye-to-the- AM Radio Band -hello- Expanded "HD" Radio FM Band +plus+ Added in the HD-2 sub-channels even at 25% of the total that's ~4000 new HD-2 Radio Stations On-the-Air. That in itself would generate Radio Listener interest in Digital "HD" Radio and sell new "HD" FM Radios. -all-made-in-china-;;-}}- More FM Radio Channels and Digital 'HD' Sound ! -we-are-selling-the-'sizzle'-not-the-steak- As always this is RHF and... I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8 -ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-:o)- |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On Jan 14, 3:43*pm, "Brenda Ann"
wrote: "tony sayer" *wrote in ... I have to say that using 76 - 88 MHz for digital radio sounds like a good idea. ANy objections? ;-) gr, hwh Well it has Low Band PMR in the UK so you'd have to shift that, not that it has many users now but its new receivers for everyone..... -- Tony Sayer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's TV channel 6 in the US. This has been discussed to death, but there are still many stations on channel 6, even after the shift to digital. *Some are also saying "use the low VHF TV band to expand cell phones, etc." but that would be very problematic due to the physics of antenna construction. I doubt that people want to go back to having whip antennas on their portable phones. - Personally, I think if they dropped the entire - 54-88 MHz low VHF TV band, they should give a - section of it, maybe 2-4 MHz, over to a - license-free public "Free band" where amateur - broadcasters (i.e. "pirates") could legally - broadcast. Sort of like what they did to the - 11m Citizens Band. BAD -ok- Where is the Profit [$$$$$$] in that...? The US Congress Edict To The FCC : Monetize The Spectrum [The Must Be Profits !] Increase Business Revenues & Expand The Tax Base ! -?-how-many-lobbyists-do-radio-pirates- -have-on-'k'-street-in-washington-dc-?- Where as, Expanding the FM Radio Band for 60 'new' FM "HD" Radio Channels could add ~ 6000 'new' {Commercial} FM Radio Stations with 'Local' Advertisers and Increased Business, Profits and Taxes. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...0896f2d354a658 That in itself would generate Radio Listener interest in Digital "HD" Radio and sell new "HD" FM Radios. -all-made-in-china-;;-}}- More FM Radio Channels and Digital 'HD' Sound ! -we-are-selling-the-'sizzle'-not-the-steak- As always this is RHF and... I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8 -ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-:o)- |
Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
On Jan 15, 9:33*am, SMS wrote:
On 1/15/2012 6:17 AM, J G Miller wrote: On Sunday, January 15th, 2012, at 12:11:07h +0000, Richard Evans wrote: Add to this the fact that most HD-Radio broadcasters, don't actually use any bit rates higher than 40k. At 40k even aac+ sounds poor, and presumably the HD-Radio codec will sound even worse. And that is the sad reality of the situation. Thankfully that is not the reality at all. If you look at table 5.2.1 at http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_r... you can actually learn where listeners begin to not like the audio quality. The question listeners and radio stations should be asking is, what digital system could be developed for future use, rather than continuing with the present failures of DAB and HD(tm) radio. - Only clueless listeners and radio stations - would be asking that question. Those living - in the real world know that the digital system - in use in the U.S. is going to be around for - a long time. And as HD continues to be deployed - in other countries, there will be pressure for - the ROW to go along with it as well. - That's the actual reality of the situation. OOPS! -sad-reality-:-but-very-true- Generating Radio Listener {Consumer} Interest in Digital "HD" Radio and sell new "HD" FM Radios. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...0896f2d354a658 -by- Expanding the present FM Radio Band; and making it an All Digital "HD" Radio FM Band More FM Radio Channels and Digital 'HD' Sound ! -yes-we-are-selling-the-'sizzle'-not-the-steak- As always this is RHF and... I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8 -ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-:o)- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com